Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well Ajeck, seems awful quiet. With the exception of kd (which is to be expected - and kd, gotta admire that you seem the only one with guts enough to take this one on), there has been no response from the fundie/literalist crowd. I wonder why?
Yah its quite quiet. But I know there are lurkers out there (as with all forums) that read such threads with quiet interest. So lets hope they learn something from those who have responded.
I think the problem is many theists feel beliefs/faith do not need to be justified. I know when I did believed questions such as these were dismissed because "those guys just didn't get it."
I just hope everyone understands my questions/threads are not to cause trouble but to help encourage free thought and self-understanding.
I can google a ton of stuff that is evidence that you do not have a leg to stand on, but that would do no good. You have no appreciation of logic and evidence. Much like a ton of the religiosity folks here.
I guess I have a question if it's really worth arguing over. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the gospels were written by around 60 AD (John somewhat later). If you believe that this is an error, then you have to question why the writers would have put it in the gospel. Did the gospel writer just screw up? Did they knowingly put in error? Did the early church not pick up on it? Answer those questions and perhaps I'll question the issue more.
I guess I have a question if it's really worth arguing over. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the gospels were written by around 60 AD (John somewhat later). If you believe that this is an error, then you have to question why the writers would have put it in the gospel. Did the gospel writer just screw up? Did they knowingly put in error? Did the early church not pick up on it? Answer those questions and perhaps I'll question the issue more.
You are being very generous in putting the gospels in the early 60s. Many scholars date Mark; what is thought to be the first gospel, to be completed in 65-70AD.
The early church was not as united as you think. What you know as the Bible today did not come into existence immediately after the crucifixion. There were plenty of different beliefs. Some groups had different scriptures to work with; even those that aren't in the Bible of today. Here are just a few of the groups: The Ebonites, Marconites, various Gnostic groups, Proto-Orthodox Christians, etc. Essentially it was a struggle to win as many converts as possible; the wealthier and better managed Roman Christians won out over other groups.
There is no way to know the intention of the authors as they are dead. We can only take each gospel and study them to see if they fit really well together. Here are some contradictions you should study using the historical critical method.
Was Jesus in doubt and despair on the way to the cross (Mark) or calm and in control (Luke)?
Did Jesus’ death provide an atonement for sin (Mark and Paul) or not (Luke)?
Did Jesus perform signs to prove who he was (John) or did he refuse to do so (Matthew)?
Must Jesus’ followers keep the law if they are to enter the Kingdom (Matthew) or absolutely not (Paul)?
If you take a quick look at the beliefs of today... it really isn't hard to see that there are numerous different views on Christianity even in our times... there is even a new offshoot of the Abrahamic God; Islam. Each believes "they have it right and the other is wrong" so it really isn't hard to imagine that happening with early Christianity.
a) The Census:
One of the many objections to Luke's account is an alleged mistake concerning the census in Quirinius' day (Lk. 2:2). The alleged problem is that Quirinius did not become governor until c. 7 AD according to Josephus, while Christ was born before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. However, the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright34 points out that prwtoV (pròtos) not only means 'first', but when followed by the genitive can mean 'before' (cf. Jn. 1:15, 15:38). Therefore the census around the time of Christ's birth was one which took place before Quirinius was governing Syria (Acts 5:37 proves that Luke was aware of the latter). Another possible solution is that Quirinius twice governed Syria, once around 7 BC and again around 7 AD, which is supported by certain inscriptions.35 Under this scenario, Luke's use of pròtos refers to the first census in 7 BC, rather than the well-known one in 7 AD.
Yes, but the argument I brought forth does not even care when Jesus was supposedly born. Why would events such the mass migration or murders of firstborns not be mentioned outside the bible?
The two events I bring into question are not minuscule. It would be hard to believe that there are no other historical records of them.
Does not wisdom call, and understanding lift up her voice? To you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men. O simple ones, discern prudence; and, O fools discern wisdom.
He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself.
a) The Census:
One of the many objections to Luke's account is an alleged mistake concerning the census in Quirinius' day (Lk. 2:2). The alleged problem is that Quirinius did not become governor until c. 7 AD according to Josephus, while Christ was born before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. However, the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright34 points out that prwtoV (pròtos) not only means 'first', but when followed by the genitive can mean 'before' (cf. Jn. 1:15, 15:38). Therefore the census around the time of Christ's birth was one which took place before Quirinius was governing Syria (Acts 5:37 proves that Luke was aware of the latter). Another possible solution is that Quirinius twice governed Syria, once around 7 BC and again around 7 AD, which is supported by certain inscriptions.35 Under this scenario, Luke's use of pròtos refers to the first census in 7 BC, rather than the well-known one in 7 AD.
That the census is the 'first' is not so much the translation, but that the Roman, Quirinus or the Syrian governor would not carry out a Judean tax - census until Judea became a Roman province. And that was not until Herod (whom we recall tried to kill Jesus) had to die (4 B.C) According to Matthew while Jesus was hiding out in Egypt) and then, when Matthew says those who were trying to kill Jesus were dead Jesus and family returned and moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's son, Herod Archelaeus, who had become king of Judea. When he was deposed by the Romans, that is when, and onlt when, Quirinus could have carried out a tax census which was supposedly the reason for Joseph and his wife to go to Bethlehem where Jesus (now more than 2years old) was born.
This, rather than 'first' or 'before' is what is a difficulty. Add to that the matter of galilee not being subject to the census so Joseph would not need to register anyway, and that is quite enough to cast doubt. But that isn't all.
Why the mistakes? As was said, wouldn't Matthew and Luke have known better?
They would, if they had compared notes, but they didn't. In constructing a scenario to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, Matthew had then as Judeans under Herod and shifted them to Nazareth. Luke had then as Nazoreans who had to go to Bethlehem. Luke, knowing about the census, used that as a mechanism. His scenario, other that not knowing that Antipas as tetrarch would not have Galillee taxes by Rome and the logistical whackiness of everyone going back to their ancestral city to register, is not too bad, datewise. It only comes a cropper because is contradicts Matthew.
For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
"Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child."
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?
2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings in his ABC Special "The Search for Jesus," and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi told me:
Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee. And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem. One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that he didn’t have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.
An Empire-wide census?
Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.
Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.
But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.
Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.
So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.
The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, "…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions."
But what about Luke’s reference, "this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
Why did Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem?
Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census." This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.
I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?
Could a census have taken place while Herod was alive?
Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?
This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.
Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.
Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.
Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.
So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
(Reference: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute | Dr. John Ankerberg)
Last edited by epicrantings; 12-24-2009 at 10:17 AM..
Reason: Add Reference
In recent threads a few asked "What issues are there in the bible if any?"
I've responded with the example of Caesar Augustus's census. The question has yet to be answered. So I'll bring it up again.
I would like to have a well thought out discussion on this. Thank you.
The bottom line is this: All the Gospels were written by second orthird hand accounts about forty years after the original witnesses (the Apostles) were dead, and it's not as if the authors had access to Wikipedia to double check the dates.
What if I had to right about my grandfather's commander in WWII and all the history surrounding it, based only on what he had told me and without any historical works to look in (libraries were not that great back than and only a few had access to them). I might mess up and say that Elvis was around back then or that The State of Alaska was threatened with Japanese invasion, even though Alaska was not a state at the time. Would that mean that my granfather's commanding officer in WWII did not exist? (for the life of me, btw, I cannot remember what grandpa said his name was )
No.
Allot of believers, even mainstream Christians, unlike myself, a Gnostic, do not believe that the bible is 100% accurate and awknowledge the fact that it was written from oral tradition and of course there are going to be inaccuracies. However, we are asked to interrupt the Bible anyway, and not just read it left-to-right "take everything literally" in a way that one might a science textbook anyway.
This thinking is not new in the least: CS Lewis even said that the Gospels were not historical documents and should be understood as such. However, they do teach valuable, timeless lessons on life, ourselves, our world, and God it's self and man's relationship with divinity. Hence, while we understand that it is kind of foolish to think that it is 100% accurate, we also understand that it still the word of God, and the inaccuries there in only mean that we as believers cannot be lazy and simply accept it all without first analyzing it, studying it, and intelligently deciding what is and what is not historic fact.
Yes, but the argument I brought forth does not even care when Jesus was supposedly born. Why would events such the mass migration or murders of firstborns not be mentioned outside the bible?
The two events I bring into question are not minuscule. It would be hard to believe that there are no other historical records of them.
Is it an assumption to believe that there was a mass migration? Just because Joseph and Mary went to Bethehem to register, doesn't mean that everybody had to go back to their ancestral home. The majority of them were probably already living there. Granted, some had to travel, but maybe it wasn't enough to mention it as a mass migration, but certainly enough so that there was no room in the inn at Bethlehem.
"He gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem (2:16). Only 123 men returned to Bethlehem from the Babylonian deportation (Ezra 2:21), and it appears not to have grown beyond a small village of perhaps a thousand people at the birth of Jesus. Herod’s forces kill all the infant boys under the age of two years, which would calculate to between ten to thirty boys. Although this number of infant boys massacred would be a huge loss for the village of Bethlehem, it is not an incident that stands out significantly when seen in the light of other horrific events in Herod’s infamous career, and historians would have easily bypassed it. “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning” (2:18). Centuries earlier, Nebuchadnezzar’s army had gathered the captives from Judah in the town of Ramah before they were taken into exile to Babylon (Jer. 40:1–2). Jeremiah depicts Rachel, who is the personification of the mothers of Israel, mourning for her children as they are being carried away. However, there was hope for their future because God would restore Rachel’s children to their own land (31:16–17), and messianic joy would come in the future establishment of the new covenant with Israel (31:31–34). [ZIBBC, in loc]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The response you've been looking for
) 
